Israel’s recent multi-faceted assault on Iran’s nuclear and military infrastructure has signaled a seismic shift in the Middle Eastern geopolitical landscape. This extensive operation, which includes targeted strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities, missile programs, and the leadership of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), has drawn widespread attention for its audacity, reminiscent of David taking on Goliath.
As the Trump administration seeks to navigate these tumultuous developments, the primary objective will be to defuse tensions while regional actors adapt to the new reality. However, achieving de-escalation in the immediate future is not guaranteed. It will necessitate substantial involvement from the U.S. military, which remains an essential player in times of crisis.
Details regarding the damage inflicted in these operations are still being assessed, and at present, Israel, Iran, and the United States are uncertain about the implications of these actions on Iran’s defensive and retaliatory capabilities. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s goals may evolve over time; should opportunities arise to weaken Iran’s nuclear ambitions, his aggressive campaign could broaden and extend, reminiscent of past operations against groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. While Iran has found itself momentarily vulnerable, it is expected to respond using its remaining capabilities, evidenced by its missile strikes against Israel that began over the weekend.
Typically, the United States wields considerable influence over its allies and partners due to its military, economic, and diplomatic prowess. This creates a dynamic where U.S. interests often guide the strategies of its allies. However, in the case of Israel, it appears that the smaller partner may proceed with actions that challenge U.S. efforts toward de-escalation unless proactive measures are undertaken.
Yet, Washington still possesses leverage over a beleaguered Tehran, which has no desire for a direct confrontation with the United States. Historically, Iran has relied on its proxy networks—such as Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and various Shiite militia groups—to enact low-intensity attacks against U.S. forces and interests in the region. This context underscores Israel’s current strategy of aligning closely with the United States, signaling to Iran that any attack on Israel equates to an attack on the United States. Such claims resonate within Iran, as Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other officials assert American complicity, possibly aiming at both internal and external audiences, and serving as a cautionary note to the U.S. to temper Israeli aggression.
Regardless of Tehran’s motivations, it is crucial for U.S. military forces to be strategically positioned to defend against Iranian provocations. To effectively manage the escalating situation and stave off a broader regional war, the White House should consider five preliminary action steps.
First, the United States should enhance its military stance in preparation for potential Iranian responses. This includes an expanded presence of ballistic missile defense-capable destroyers in the Eastern Mediterranean, provisioning additional interceptors for air defense across the region, and increasing air power in the Gulf and on the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Such measures would bolster defenses for both U.S. forces and Israel while offering options for a retaliatory strike against Iran, should the situation necessitate it. Forces currently deployed long-term should also be replenished with ready troops, and additional units should be placed on heightened alert for potential deployment. Explicit and clear messaging regarding these efforts is essential to impress upon Iran the severe repercussions of any U.S. attack, particularly considering the current limitations of Iran’s proxy capabilities and air defenses. An internal, conditions-based approach to redeploying forces will also be vital as stability returns.
In tandem with these military adjustments, continued support for Israel’s defense is imperative. While bolstering U.S. military capabilities in the region might tempt Israel to pursue further strikes on Iran, the larger concern is the possibility of being unprepared to defend against attacks targeting U.S. assets or in mitigating Iran’s retaliatory strikes against Israel.
Second, the Trump administration should transition from voluntary departures to ordered evacuations of personnel from State Department facilities in light of the mounting tensions. By reducing the presence of non-emergency personnel and their dependents, the United States can alleviate some of the defensive burdens on its forces while simultaneously signaling to regional partners that an escalation could result in a diminished U.S. presence—an outcome they would prefer to avoid. This move could serve as a potent incentive for these partners to pursue diplomatic avenues for de-escalation.
Third, the plans for noncombatant evacuations (NEOs) from Israel and Jordan should be diligently updated and refined. Although the conditions triggering such large-scale evacuations have yet to materialize since October 7, 2023, the hypothetical scenarios must be revisited. U.S. officials need to have clear internal discussions regarding the specific triggers that would necessitate executing these evacuation plans, such as the potential disruption of operation for commercial airports. Furthermore, discussions surrounding NEO strategies should also be held with allies, who often anticipate U.S. assistance but frequently do not inform American officials of their assumptions regarding support until it is too late.
Fourth, there must be a readiness to engage militarily against Iran if it chooses to attack U.S. forces. Should Iran launch strikes against American personnel or interests, the U.S. must respond with overwhelming force. The military should revisit and expand its range of response options to capitalize on Iran’s vulnerabilities, such as targeting military sites currently lacking adequate air defenses or exposed operational headquarters linked to the IRGC. The Trump administration has the authority to decide the timing and nature of the U.S. response, and the preemptive military positioning for defense will support a more assertive stance if required.
Lastly, it is crucial to manage the intensity and frequency of crises over time. Any administration must balance multiple crises concurrently, yet the Trump administration should evaluate which sectors possess the capabilities to effectively navigate the varying challenges, particularly given the finite resources and attention of senior officials and high-demand U.S. military forces. The military is uniquely equipped to prevent the escalation of a broader regional conflict that could inflict extensive human and economic costs on both the United States and the surrounding region. Therefore, the White House should prioritize the swift de-escalation of tensions to redirect focus toward other pressing theaters and issues.
With effective and composed leadership during this heated period, the United States stands the best chance of mitigating the potential for a wider regional war that might quickly spiral out of control.
image source from：https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/how-the-us-can-reduce-the-risk-of-wider-war-in-the-middle-east/
